Diagnosis and pharmacological management of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in adults with and without intellectual disability: cohort study using electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is increasingly diagnosed in adults. People with intellectual disability have higher rates of ADHD yet there is little evidence on the presentation and pharmacological treatment of ADHD in this population or how this differs from the general population. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using data from electronic health records. Adults with intellectual disability newly diagnosed with ADHD between 2007 and 2022 were matched to adults with ADHD without intellectual disability and their clinical features and treatments were compared. RESULTS: A total of 159 adults with ADHD and intellectual disability and 648 adults with ADHD without intellectual disability formed the dataset. Adults with intellectual disability had higher rates of psychiatric co-morbidity and spent more time under mental health services than those without intellectual disability. They were more likely to have recorded agitation, aggression, hostility, and mood instability, and less likely to have poor concentration recorded in the 12 months prior to the diagnosis of ADHD. Following diagnosis, people with intellectual disability were significantly less likely to be prescribed any medication for ADHD than controls without intellectual disability (adjusted odds ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.38-0.91), and were less likely to be prescribed stimulants (27.7% v 46.0%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of behaviors that challenge in adults with intellectual disability may indicate co-occurring ADHD. Further work to define the safety and efficacy of medication for ADHD in adults with intellectual disability is needed to understand differences in prescription rates and to avoid inequities in care outcomes.

Exploring patient and staff member views on a 'consent for contact' system for sexual health research: A mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment in sexual health research is challenging. This study explores the potential of a Consent for Contact system (C4C) - generic consent for research contact - to improve participant recruitment and engagement in sexual health research. Our objectives were to understand patient and staff understanding of research, their views on a separate C4C system, and their preferences for its acceptability in a sexual health clinic setting. METHODS: A two-stage study was conducted at a large urban UK sexual health clinic from November 2021 to July 2022. Stage one involved a self-completed questionnaire administered to all patients and staff. In Stage 2, semi-structured interviews (SSIs) further explored patient concerns and preferences. Survey data were analysed using chi-square and Fisher's exact test and thematic analysis was applied to free-text responses and SSIs. RESULTS: A total of 205/300 patient (68%) and 41/280 staff questionnaires (15%) were completed. Motivations for research participation included altruism and personal interest. Statistically significant differences were found between patients' and staff members' concerns on confidentiality and anticipated feeling of pressure to participate. The majority of staff (n = 38, 93%) and half of patients (n = 100, 49%) supported implementation of a sexual health C4C system. Participants recognised the potential benefits of a sexual health C4C system, including enhanced privacy and increased research opportunities. Concerns were raised about stigma, terminology, and signing-up methods. CONCLUSION: This study found the C4C system has the potential to enhance participant recruitment and engagement in sexual health research, but implementation support is narrowly divided with concerns around privacy and sign-up processes. These insights call for a patient-centred design approach, emphasising clear communication and privacy. Future research should focus on implementing and evaluating a sexual health C4C system to further explore their effectiveness and acceptability in different contexts.

Recommandations pour des soins préventifs pour promouvoir l'équité en matière de santé.

CONTEXTE: Malgré des investissements importants dans un système de soins de santé public qui comprend des services préventifs, on continue d'observer des disparités évitables en matière de santé au Canada. L'équipe avait pour objectif de formuler des recommandations pour des soins de santé préventifs qui puissent améliorer l'équité en matière de santé par la priorisation des interventions efficaces à l'intention des groupes défavorisés. MÉTHODES: La ligne directrice a été élaborée par un comité composé de spécialistes en soins primaires et de membres de la patientèle, avec la contribution d'un groupe de patientes-et patientspartenaires ayant vécu diverses expériences. Après avoir sélectionné les sujets à prioriser, nous avons recensé les revues systématiques, les essais randomisés et contrôlés récents sur les méthodes de dépistage et d'autres études pertinentes sur l'efficacité du dépistage et de la prise en charge. Nous avons utilisé l'approche GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) pour formuler les recommandations et avons suivi le guide AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) pour rédiger le rapport. Il en a été de même avec les principes du Guidelines International Network pour la gestion des intérêts concurrents. Les recommandations ont été passées en revue par un comité externe d'experts en contenu avant d'être distribuées à des intervenants à l'échelle nationale pour approbation. RECOMMANDATIONS: Nous avons formulé 15 recommandations concernant le dépistage et d'autres soins préventifs et 1 recommandation de nature politique visant à améliorer l'accès aux soins primaires. Ainsi, nous recommandons de prioriser une stratégie de communication pour le dépistage du cancer colorectal à partir de l'âge de 45 ans et pour l'évaluation du risque de maladie cardiovasculaire pour lutter contre les iniquités en matière de santé et promouvoir la santé. Les interventions particulières qui devraient être déployées pour lutter contre les iniquités comprennent l'autodépistage du virus du papillome humain (VPH) et du VIH, et le test de libération de l'interféron γ pour l'infection tuberculeuse. Le dépistage de la dépression, de la toxicomanie, de la violence conjugale et de la pauvreté devrait également permettre aux personnes touchées d'accéder plus facilement à des interventions éprouvées. Nous recommandons une prise de contact systématique avec des professionnels de la santé en soins primaires pour les personnes défavorisées. INTERPRÉTATION: Les interventions préventives éprouvées peuvent aider à combattre les iniquités en matière de santé si la priorité est accordée aux personnes défavorisées. Les médecins, les organisations de santé et les gouvernements devraient adopter des mesures fondées sur des données probantes et en faire le suivi s'ils veulent promouvoir l'équité en matière de santé partout au Canada.

Gender and racialisation of pharmaceutical sector leaders in Canada: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE/DESIGN: Lacking diversity in pharmaceutical leadership positions could contribute to inequities in medicine access. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to determine the gender and racial identities of individuals who hold leadership positions in the Canadian pharmaceutical sector. PARTICIPANTS: We compiled a list of all Canadian governmental bodies, pharmaceutical companies and insurance providers. We identified individuals who were part of the leadership team, including executives and members of the board of directors. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes of the study were the racialisation and gender of the individuals in leadership positions. The gender and racialisation of an individual were determined by reviewing their name, pronouns and institutional profile through internet searches. Two members of the research team performed the assessment and a third reviewer resolved disagreements. RESULTS: We identified 957 individuals holding leadership positions within the pharmaceutical sector, including 280 drug evaluation committee members, 12 governmental executive officers, 273 insurance company executive and board members and 392 executive and board members. Reviewers identified a total of 375 (39.2% of 957) women holding leadership roles, with most of these positions being held by governmental leaders (52.4% of 292) and a minority by insurance (37.0% of 273) and pharmaceutical (30.9% of 392) leaders. There were a total of 157 (16.4% of 957) racialised leaders, with most of these positions being held by governmental (18.5% of 292) and pharmaceutical (18.1% of 392) leaders, and a minority in insurance companies (11.7% of 273). Across the pharmaceutical sector, there were a total of 48 (5.0% of 957) racialised women and 327 (34.2% of 957) white women. CONCLUSIONS: Leaders within the Canadian pharmaceutical sector are mostly white men, and racialised women hold few leadership roles. Public policy should recognise that these institutions are mostly led by white men and reasons for this disparity could be explored.

Essential cancer medicines and cancer outcomes: Cross-sectional study of 124 countries.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is the second leading cause of death worldwide. Alongside other interventions, access to certain medicines may decrease cancer-associated mortality. Listing medicines on national essential medicines lists may improve health outcomes. We examine the association between cancer mortality amenable to care and the listing of cancer medicines on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) of 124 countries. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we determined the number of medicines used to treat eight cancers on NEMLs and used multiple linear regression to analyze the association between cancer health outcome scores and the number of medicines on NEMLs while controlling for GDP. A sensitivity analysis was also conducted using selected medicines. FINDINGS: The number of cancer medicines on NEMLs was not associated with cancer health outcome scores when GDP was controlled for non-melanoma skin (p = 0.224), uterine (p = 0.221), breast (p = 0.145), Hodgkin's lymphoma (p = 0.697), colon (p = 0.299), leukemia (p = 0.103), cervical (p = 0.834), and testicular cancers (p = 0.178). INTERPRETATION: There was a weak association between listing medicines for eight cancers in NEMLs and amenable mortality. Further studies are required to explore association between cancer health outcomes and other factors such as actual availability of medicines listed, access to surgeries, accurate diagnosis, radiotherapy, and early detection.

Preventive care recommendations to promote health equity.

BACKGROUND: Avoidable disparities in health outcomes persist in Canada despite substantial investments in a publicly funded health care system that includes preventive services. Our objective was to provide preventive care recommendations that promote health equity by prioritizing effective interventions for people experiencing disadvantages. METHODS: The guideline was developed by a primary care provider-patient panel, with input from a patient-partner panel with diverse lived experiences. After selecting priority topics, we searched for systematic reviews and recent randomized controlled trials of screening and other relevant studies of screening accuracy and management efficacy. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations and followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) reporting guidance. We managed competing interests using the Guideline International Network principles. The recommendations were externally reviewed by content experts and circulated for endorsement by national stakeholders. RECOMMENDATIONS: We developed 15 screening and other preventive care recommendations and 1 policy recommendation on improving access to primary care. We recommend prioritized outreach for colorectal cancer screening starting at age 45 years and for cardiovascular disease risk assessment, to help address inequities and promote health. Specific interventions that should be rolled out in ways that address inequities include human papillomavirus (HPV) self-testing, HIV self-testing and interferon-γ release assays for tuberculosis infection. Screening for depression, substance use, intimate partner violence and poverty should help connect people experiencing specific disadvantages with proven interventions. We recommend automatic connection to primary care for people experiencing disadvantages. INTERPRETATION: Proven preventive care interventions can address health inequities if people experiencing disadvantages are prioritized. Clinicians, health care organizations and governments should take evidence-based actions and track progress in promoting health equity across Canada.

Preferences for Rectal Sexually Transmitted Infection Sample Collection and Sexual Behaviors Among Adolescent and Young Adult Women Accessing Primary Care Services.

BACKGROUND: High prevalence of asymptomatic rectal chlamydia and gonorrhea among women is increasingly recognized. Screening is controversial because of lack of natural history data. Barriers to screening may include reluctance to discuss anal sex and collect rectal samples. This study describes the prevalence of sexual contact exposing adolescent and young adult women to extragenital sexually transmitted infections and acceptability of self-collection and clinician collection of rectal samples, preference for self- versus clinician-collected rectal samples, and preference for home or doctor's office for sample collection. METHODS: Participants were recruited from a primary care office and completed structured interviews assessing types of sexual contact and attitudes about rectal sampling. Differences were tested using χ2 and 2-sided Fisher exact test. RESULTS: Of 110 cisgender women (aged 14-22 years) enrolled, the average age was 18.4 years (SD, 1.7 years), 83% reported a history of extragenital contact, 22% reported history of receptive anal intercourse. A majority of participants reported self- and clinician-collected rectal samples to be acceptable (86% and 73%, respectively), with preferences for self-collection (71%) over clinician collection (29%, P < 0.001) and collection at the doctor's office (85%) over home (15%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Adolescent and young adult (AYA) women engage in behaviors that increase the risk of rectal sexually transmitted infection (STI). Self- and clinician-collected rectal samples were acceptable. A majority of AYA women preferred to collect rectal samples in the doctor's office rather than at home. This may reduce adolescents' access to direct-to-consumer STI services. Offering in-clinic, self-collected rectal samples may improve uptake of rectal STI screening in adolescent girls.

Effect of free medicine distribution on ability to make ends meet: post hoc quantitative subgroup analysis and qualitative thematic analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Out-of-pocket medication costs can contribute to financial insecurity and many Canadians have trouble affording medicines. This study aimed to determine if the effect of eliminating out-of-pocket medication costs on individual's financial security varied by gender, racialisation, income and location. DESIGN: In this post hoc subgroup analysis of the CLEAN Meds trial, a binary logistic regression model was fitted and a qualitative inductive thematic analysis of comments related to participant's ability to make ends meet was carried out. SETTING: Primary care patients in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients (786) who reported not being able to afford medicines during the previous 12 months. INTERVENTION: Free access to a comprehensive list of essential medicines for 24 months. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Ability to make ends meet or afford basic necessities. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the effect of free medicine distribution by gender (OR for male 0.82; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.33, p=0.76), age (older than 65 years OR 1.28; 95 % CI 0.62 to 2.64, p=0.73), racialisation (OR 0.85; 95 % CI 0.51 to 1.45, p=0.66), household income level (above US$30 000 per year OR 1.08; 95 % CI 0.64 to 1.80, p=0.99) or location (urban OR 0.47; 95 % CI 0.23 to 0.96, p=0.10). The main theme in the qualitative analysis was insufficient income, and there were three related themes: out-of-pocket medication expenses, cost-related non-adherence and the importance of medication coverage. In the intervention group, additional themes identified included improved health, functioning and access to basic needs. CONCLUSIONS: Providing free essential medications improved financial security across subgroups in a trial population who all had trouble affording medicines. Free access to medicines could improve health directly by improving medicine adherence and indirectly by making other necessities more accessible to people who have an insufficient income. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02744963.

Acceptability of a short list of essential medicines to patients and prescribers: Multimethod study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the acceptability of providing free access to only a short list of medicines used in the Carefully seLected and Easily Accessible at No charge Medications (CLEAN Meds) trial. DESIGN: A multimethod explanatory sequential design including interviews with trial participants and focus groups with prescribers. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Participants in the intervention arm of the CLEAN Meds trial and primary care providers who prescribed medicines to those in the intervention arm of the trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of trial participants in each prescription category (ie, prescribed no off-list medicine, prescribed 1 off-list medicine, or prescribed 2 or more off-list medicines) and the acceptability of the list to both participants and prescribers. RESULTS: There were 395 participants in the intervention group of the CLEAN Meds trial, but 16 participants withdrew consent or were not prescribed any medicines during the first 12 months of the trial, resulting in a total of 379 participants in the quantitative component of this study. Of the 2648 total prescriptions, 2349 (89%) were for medications that were on or had an equivalent covered by the list. Random sampling was used to select 5 participants to interview from each prescription category. A total of 19 prescribers participated in the focus groups. Themes from participant interviews included the following: having access to medicines on the list was a relief, participants trusted health care professionals to switch medicines and to decide which medicines should be on a publicly funded list, and a short list of essential medicines should be publicly funded. Major themes from the prescribers' focus groups related to the process of developing the list, support for the list, and publicly funding a short list of essential medicines in Canada. CONCLUSION: The consensus among trial participants and prescribers is that the short list of medicines used in the trial is comprehensive and provides access to medicines commonly prescribed.

Effect of free distribution of medicines on the process of care for adult patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes and hypertension: post hoc analysis of randomised controlled trial findings.

OBJECTIVES: The Carefully Selected and Easily Accessible at No charge Medicines randomised controlled trial showed that patients receiving free access to medicines had improved diabetes and hypertension outcomes compared with patients who had usual access to medicines. In this study, we aimed to test the impact of providing free access to medicine to people with diabetes and hypertension on process of care indicators. DESIGN: In this post hoc analysis of randomised controlled trial findings, we identified process of care indicators for the management of diabetes and hypertension using relevant guidelines. The following process of care indicators were identified for diabetes management: encounters with healthcare professionals, blood pressure measurements, self-monitoring of blood glucose, annual eye and foot examination, annual administration of the influenza vaccine, and laboratory testing for glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, serum creatinine and urine albumin to creatinine ratio. We identified the following process of care indicators for hypertension: encounters with healthcare professionals, blood pressure measurements, self-measuring of blood pressure, and serum tests for electrolytes, HbA1c, lipids and creatinine. Chart extractions were performed for all patients and the indicators for diabetes and hypertension were recorded. We compared the indicators for patients in each arm of the trial. RESULTS: The study included 268 primary care patients. Free distribution of medicines may improve self-monitoring behaviours (adjusted rate ratio (aRR) 1.30; 95% CI 0.66 to 2.57) and reduce missed primary care appointments for patients with diabetes (aRR 0.80; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.33) or hypertension (aRR 0.41; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.90). Free distribution may also reduce primary care and consultant appointments and laboratory testing in patients with hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Improving medicine accessibility for patients with diabetes and hypertension not only improves surrogate health outcomes but also improves the patient experience and may also reduce healthcare costs by encouraging self-monitoring. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The randomised controlled trial mentioned is clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02744963.

Essential tobacco dependence medicines in 137 countries.

AIMS: To use a database of national essential medicine lists to determine how many include the three tobacco dependence medicines: nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline and bupropion. METHODS: Retrospective observational study using national essential medicine lists for 137 countries. RESULTS: Of the 137 countries, 34 listed at least one of the three tobacco dependence medicines included in this analysis. Bupropion was listed by 23 countries, nicotine replacement therapy by 17 countries and varenicline by eight countries. CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco dependence medicines do not appear on the essential medicines lists of most countries.

A comparison of national essential medicines lists in the Americas.

OBJECTIVES: To compare national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) from countries in the Region of the Americas and to identify potential opportunities for improving those lists. METHODS: In June of 2017, NEMLs from 31 countries in the Americas were abstracted from documents included in a World Health Organization (WHO) repository. The lists from the Americas were compared to each other and to NEMLs from outside of the Americas, as well as with the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, 20th edition ("WHO Model List") and the list of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) Regional Revolving Fund for Strategic Public Health Supplies ("Strategic Fund"). RESULTS: The number of differences between the NEMLs from the Americas and the WHO Model List were similar within those countries (median: 295; interquartile range (IQR): 265 to 347). The NEMLs from the Americas were generally similar to each other. While the NEMLs from the Americas coincided well with the Strategic Fund list, some medicines were not included on any of those NEMLs. All the NEMLs in the Americas included some medicines that were withdrawn due to adverse effects by a national regulatory body (median: 8 withdrawn medicines per NEML; IQR: 4 to 12). CONCLUSIONS: The NEMLs in the Americas were fairly similar to each other and to the WHO Model List and the Strategic Fund list. However, some areas of treatment and some specific medicines were identified that the countries should reassess when revising their NEMLs.

Withdrawn medicines included in the essential medicines lists of 136 countries.

BACKGROUND: Essential medicines lists and related policies are intended to meet the priority health needs of populations and their implementation is associated with more appropriate use of medicines. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that countries carefully select the medicines to be included in their national essential medicines lists. Lists that are used to prioritize access to important treatments should not include medicines that have been withdrawn elsewhere because of an unfavourable benefit-to-harm balance; however, countries still list and use medicines that have been withdrawn worldwide. The objective of this study was to determine whether the national essential medicines lists of 137 countries include medicines that have been withdrawn in other countries. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We performed an audit of national essential medicines lists for medicines that had been withdrawn. Medicines withdrawn from worldwide markets between 1953 and 2014 were identified using a systematic review of published literature and regulatory documents. The reviewers used sources including the WHO's database of drugs, PubMed, and the websites of regulatory agencies to obtain information regarding adverse effects associated with the medicines, the year of first withdrawal, markets of withdrawal, and the level of evidence supporting each withdrawal. We recorded the number of countries with a withdrawn medicine included in their national medicines list, the number of withdrawn medicines included in each nation's list, and the number of national essential medicines including each withdrawn medicine. 97 medicines were withdrawn in at least one country but still included in one more national essential medicines list. Of 137 countries with a national essential medicines list, 136 lists included at least one withdrawn medicine, with 54% of the lists containing 5 or fewer withdrawn medicines, and 27% including 10 or more withdrawn medicines. 11 medicines were withdrawn worldwide but still included on at least one national essential medicines list. Countries with longer essential medicines lists had more withdrawn medicines included in their lists. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that withdrawn medicines are included in all but one national essential medicines list, representing a need for more stringent processes for selecting and removing medicines on these lists. Countries may wish to apply special scrutiny to medicines withdrawn in other nations when selecting medicines to include on their lists.

Selection of WHO-recommended essential medicines for non-communicable diseases on National Essential Medicines Lists.

BACKGROUND: Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading cause of death worldwide. Inadequate and inequitable access to essential NCD medicines is a major concern, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. National Essential Medicines Lists (EMLs) are important policy tools that indicate which medicines are prioritized as essential within a country's health system. This study sought to analyze a wide range of national essential medicines lists (EMLs) for their inclusion of priority non communicable disease (NCD) interventions recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). METHODS: Three lists of WHO endorsed priority NCD interventions were included. A database with 137 national EMLs and the WHO EML was created from the WHO Repository and these EMLs were compared for listing of priority NCD interventions. RESULTS: Across 137 countries with national EMLs, the median percentage of 20 Best Buys interventions listed was 90% (IQR 80-95) and 31 Package of essential noncommunicable disease interventions (PEN) interventions listed was 94% (IQR 90-97), of 9 HEARTS interventions was 100% (IQR 89-100), and of the 43 unique interventions across the three priority lists was 88% (IQR 84-93). Less than 80% of the 43 interventions were listed by 22 (16%) countries and less than half of the interventions were listed by 2 countries: Angola (35%) and Cambodia (23%). Interventions listed on the fewest number of national EMLs were: influenza vaccine, HPV vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine, cervical cancer chemotherapy, codeine, promethazine, senna, and oxygen. CONCLUSION: Most NCD interventions have been prioritized in national policy in most cases. The majority of priority medicines for NCDs described within key WHO NCD technical packages are listed on nearly all national EMLs across 137 countries of all income levels. Most NCD interventions have been prioritized in national policy in most cases, but in some countries and for select interventions such as the HPV vaccine, prioritization may be reviewed.

Comparison of essential medicines lists in 137 countries.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the medicines included in national essential medicines lists with the World Health Organization's (WHO's) Model list of essential medicines, and assess the extent to which countries' characteristics, such as WHO region, size and health care expenditure, account for the differences. METHODS: We searched the WHO's Essential Medicines and Health Products Information Portal for national essential medicines lists. We compared each national list of essential medicines with both the 2017 WHO model list and other national lists. We used linear regression to determine whether differences were dependent on WHO Region, population size, life expectancy, infant mortality, gross domestic product and health-care expenditure. FINDINGS: We identified 137 national lists of essential medicines that collectively included 2068 unique medicines. Each national list contained between 44 and 983 medicines (median 310: interquartile range, IQR: 269 to 422). The number of differences between each country's essential medicines list and WHO's model list ranged from 93 to 815 (median: 296; IQR: 265 to 381). Linear regression showed that only WHO region and health-care expenditure were significantly associated with the number of differences (adjusted R2 : 0.33; P < 0.05). Most medicines (1248; 60%) were listed by no more than 10% (14) of countries. CONCLUSION: The substantial differences between national lists of essential medicines are only partly explained by differences in country characteristics and thus may not be related to different priority needs. This information helps to identify opportunities to improve essential medicines lists.

Health outcomes related to the provision of free, tangible goods: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Free provision of tangible goods that may improve health is one approach to addressing discrepancies in health outcomes related to income, yet it is unclear whether providing goods for free improves health. We systematically reviewed the literature that reported the association between the free provision of tangible goods and health outcomes. METHODS: A search was performed for relevant literature in all languages from 1995-May 2017. Eligible studies were observational and experimental which had at least one tangible item provided for free and had at least one quantitative measure of health. Studies were excluded if the intervention was primarily a service and the free good was relatively unimportant; if the good was a medication; or if the data in a study was duplicated in another study. Covidence screening software was used to manage articles for two levels of screening. Data was extracted using an adaption of the Cochrane data collection template. Health outcomes, those that affect the quality or duration of life, are the outcomes of interest. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017069463). FINDINGS: The initial search identified 3370 articles and 59 were included in the final set with a range of 20 to 252 246 participants. The risk of bias assessment revealed that overall, the studies were of medium to high quality. Among the studies included in this review, 80 health outcomes were statistically significant favouring the intervention, 19 health outcomes were statistically significant favouring the control, 141 health outcomes were not significant and significance was unknown for 28 health outcomes. INTERPRETATION: The results of this systematic review provide evidence that free goods can improve health outcomes in certain circumstances, although there were important gaps and limitations in the existing literature.